Is it a 'War'? (Bill Rusher Column)

The other day, when I made a reference to "the war on terrorism," a Democratic friend of mine objected: "It's not a war." I never found out what he thought it was -- the conversation wandered off in other directions -- but the question keeps nagging away in the back of my mind. If it isn't a "war," what is it?

I have no particular hang-up about calling it a war. Call it a "fracas," if you prefer, or a "brouhaha." But it is certainly something, and deserves a name. And I will concede that, if it is a war, it is a most unusual example of the species.

In an ordinary war, one nation-state takes up arms against another. The cause will presumably be important, but it needn't be earth-shaking -- a boundary dispute will do. The battles will be waged between organized military units, using a wide variety of technologies, and sooner or later one side will win.

The current fracas passes not a single one of these tests. The aggressor is militant Islam, which is not a nation-state, but a religious conviction on the part of millions of individuals scattered, in greater or smaller numbers, among a wide variety of nations. And the "war" it is waging is not so much against a nation-state or states as against a cultural frame of mind: the culture of "the West," which the militants believe it is their obligation to destroy. Not merely "defeat," you understand, but destroy.

The issue, in other words, could hardly be more fundamental. In the view of the Islamic militants, the West is a suppurating vat of evil, armed with technologies that have enabled it to overwhelm the rest of the world and humiliate Islam. They consider it their obligation to eradicate it and replace it, the world over, with the one true religion.

This is obviously a tall order, but Osama bin Laden and other creative thinkers in the militant ranks have studied the problem carefully and think they see a way of bringing it about. They cannot possibly overwhelm the West militarily in the conventional way. But they believe that the West -- and above all, its leading nation, the United States -- is effete, decadent and corrupted by its creature comforts. They note that for more than 30 years the United States has fled every battlefield on which it was being forced to sustain serious casualties. There is good reason to believe that Iraq may be next.

By way of contrast, the Islamic militants are not in the least afraid of death. On the contrary, they have a virtually endless supply of willing suicides, ready to crash passenger planes into buildings, or simply strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them in the midst of their enemies. In Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, and other countries all over the globe, they have developed these techniques into what amounts to a whole new technology of war.

In this sort of "war," there is no nation-state against which the West can stage a counterattack (though there are, to be sure, rogue nation-states like Iran, ready to aid the militants). There is no capital city that can be conquered and occupied. There is not even a political leadership sufficiently unified and effective to bring about surrender, assuming it could be forced to try. The enemy is everywhere, and therefore, in effect, nowhere.

Who can say with confidence that bin Laden is wrong in his calculations? At the moment, he almost certainly thinks he is winning. If the Democrats succeed in forcing a "redeployment" of American forces in Iraq to some less inhospitable area (probably home), the Middle East will rapidly fall under the sway of the militants, the Muslim influence in Europe and much of the rest of the world will grow and become more malignant, and the United States will be left to confront its fate alone.

So the "war on terrorism" may not be a war in the conventional sense. But a day may come, ironically, when we will wish it were.

So the "war on terrorism" may not be a war in the conventional sense. But a day may come, ironically, when we will wish it were.

A good start would be to declare "war" and act like we intend to win it.

The aggressor is militant Islam, which is not a nation-state, but a religious conviction on the part of millions of individuals scattered, in greater or smaller numbers, among a wide variety of nations.

The frightening part is that the only Muslims that we in the west have nothing to fear from are those that have never read the Koran (perhaps because of fear), do not believe that what it says should be followed and therefore for all intents and purposes should be regarded as apostates. What would happen if there was a true 'revival' of Islam that swept through all the Islamic nations converting these apostates to 'true Islam'? Millions of Mohamed Attas would be unleashed. Anyone who thinks that the root of all this is not a spiritual battle better think again.

3 posted on 09/12/2006 7:36:56 AM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest... ( "Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences." Robert Louis Stevenson)

The article defines this "war" well. It's the reason why intelligence methods like warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, monitoring bank records, profiling and other methods like these are critical to fighting a "war" like this !!!

Well, it's probably not a war if we're still arguing about it five years later. As far as I can see, the Country's not at war but the government is, kinda; the Administration when it suits its purposes, the Congress when there's face-time in it and the Courts when they can't avoid it.

It really is a little like Vietnam; the pols aren't willing to make a serious effort to win but they're afraid to quit. The basic strategy of civilizing the Moslem world at gunpoint has already failed, though: when our troops leave Iraq they aren't going anyplace but home.

It is the biggest land grab in history. Over the past decade, Islamofascists have attacked:

India Sudan Algeria Afghanistan Pakistan Israel Russia Chechnya Philippines Indonesia Nigeria England Thailand Spain Egypt Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Ingushetia Dagestan Turkey Kabardino-Balkaria Morocco Yemen Lebanon France Uzbekistan Gaza Tunisia Kosovo Bosnia Mauritania Kenya Eritrea Syria Somalia Kuwait Ethiopia Iran Iraq Jordan United Arab Emirates Tanzania Germany Belgium Denmark East Timor Qatar Maryl Tajikistan Nerls Scotland Chad Canada United States

Good post. Thanks for passing this article along.

If there is another attack or attacks with a significant loss of life, you would think that Americans would "get it". Some do, some don't.

I've talked to some folks where I work and indeed, some do not even remotely get it. They believe the US is the aggressor, yet they see no real threat from militant Islam, as how could it possible affect them in their individual lives?

In other words, out of "sight", out of mind.

There comes a point when each adult will contemplate what type of country they will help to leave to their children and grandchildren.

"for more than 30 years the United States has fled every battlefield on which it was being forced to sustain serious casualties. "

You mean you have to keep fighting? That's just loudmouth flag-waver talk. If we just mourn sincerely, fly yellow ribbons until 'outrage' is replaced with 'tragedy,' and get Jesus back into government, God will smite our enemies for us.

After all, the War on Terror's no different than the War on Drugs. If you're in the right, don't worry. Be happy. And don't offend anybody. Just be glad Gore didn't get into office or we'd have to contend with government bloat and encroachment on top of everything else.

The fact that we call it a "war on terrorism" tells me it's probably not a war. You don't fight wars against principles, methods of violence, or any other nebulous, inanimate things -- you fight wars against enemies.

If FDR had stood up on December 7, 1941 and called on America to support a "war on fascism," he would have been chained to his wheelchair and dumped in the Potomac River.

Dont tell me there is no nation state that we can attack to stop this or to at least cripple it severly ,Iran ,Syria ,North Korea ,China ,Russia ,Give me a break

There is no capital city that can be conquered and occupied.

But Islam DOES have a capital.

It's called Mecca.

The Mohammetans must be put on notice that if they commit any more shennanigans against the United States, Mecca will be bombed, and their "holy" moon rock and its shrine will be the first target.

The damage should be at least decade proportional, that is, there should be at least 10 times as much damage to Mecca as the Mohammetans cause in the American homeland.

When all that remains of Mecca is a smoking hole, we can start on Medina.

The Mohammetans must be put on notice that if they commit any more shennanigans against the United States, Mecca will be bombed, and their "holy" moon rock and its shrine will be the first target.

I like the way you think. Perhaps we should take this one step further and tell them we're going to bomb them so if any person is around to die, it will have been his choice. This way we will not be killing innocent people, but we will be destroying just a thing. Perhaps this will alert some people about what WE think is important vs. what they hold dear.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.